ant

Answer my prior questions first; then I'll answer yours.

Jardine, I won't be answering your questions. I'm not going to waste my time on your alternative facts.
To use Seth Miller's first criterion of strength; the arguments deniers use are all over the place with no consistency. Arguments put out by nay sayers just try to create uncertainty, there are very few research projects which have been produced by skeptical scientists. Blog sites such as WUWT continually get things wrong. Deniers are not able to write anything sensible in relation to meta Reports such on Oceans or the state of the Arctic.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf

Jardine,
here's your first problem. "The IPCC is not a *scientific* body charged with determining *whether* we face catastrophic man-made global warming, it’s a *political* body charged with propagating the view *that* we do."

Um, no. As you're always saying, if your starting premise / presupposition / paradigm is wrong, then it's going to throw everything else out. If the starting plum line is skew-if, the whole argument you are building on will be wrong.

The IPCC simply summarises the science from the peer-reviewed magazines, those bastions of thought and evidence you appear to just sneer at, apparently just because they're inconvenient to your politics? ;-)

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.” [1] The goal of these assessments is to inform international policy and negotiations on climate-related issues."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#.WI_SkrZ9670

G'day Max
It had been scientists and economists etc that had put together the IPCC reports, not UN personnel.
Richard Lindzen and Richard Toll had been involved along with many others; both are anthropogenic climate change contrarians.

As you say, begin with a false premise and what follows is garbage.

Sadly, we are living in a period where prejudice (false facts) rule over the rationally orientated scientific method.

ant, Max

The very fact that you two have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit your argument must comply with the principles of rationality - and even then you flat-out refuse - just proves you're a troupe of clowns.

The fact that you refuse to open yourself to the possibility of falsification, just proves you don't understand what science is.

Have it your way.

You have the onus of proof, and refuse to prove. You lose.

You refuse to answer questions which will EITHER falsify your claims, or mine. You lose. You proved my views correct, and yours false.

You assume everything that is in issue, and when challenged you *repeat* your mere assumption - over and over and over and over and over and over again. You lose.

You can't even bring yourself to state what the problem is, what the solution is, why, and how you know by any rational means. (Crawling up the arse of power-based authorities is not proof you fools.) You lose.

All you've proved is that climate policy cannot be rationally defended and should be abolished.

Great work guys.

The miserable lamentations of totalitarian national socialist fascists are music to my ears, so by all means feel free to regale us with how you FEEL about America dumping your mediaeval Sale of Indulgences to the God-State.

The difference between my insults of you, and yours of me, is that mine are the CONCLUSION of my argument logically established by independent reasoning. I have logically destroyed your argument, and proved mine.

Your insults of me, by contract, are the very FOUNDATION OF YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

That's it.

All you're saying is "I believe, I *believe*, and it must be so because JKJ is a bad person." That's it.

Laughable clowns.

Anyway, suck eggs. You lost the intellectual and moral arguments, and now you're losing the policy argument.

HA HAA. Tough luck. Climate policy is going to be abolished because the non-parasitic hypocrite world has seen through your transparent credulity and dishonesty. Suck eggs, and writhe with impotent anti-human hate.

sophistry
ˈsɒfɪstri/
noun
"the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."

Jardine, you're so in love with the sound of your own voice you bore me.

If ANYONE ELSE is confused by Jardine's long-winded rants, they can investigate the following links.

Jardine, if you want to continue this conversation, please explain WHY YOU DON'T accept the evidence that the rest of us accept, and that I shouldn't even have to quote.

On our side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/